"Shaq-Fu" Saddam, we're taking him out.

JolietJake

JolietJake

Banned
This is actually an article on McCain and Bush's relationship, but i thought the insight into the behind the scenes stuff was the most interesting, especially this part.

Despite his public support for Bush after 9/11, McCain had deep misgivings about him as Commander in Chief. In March 2002, he and two other Senators were at the White House, briefing Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, about their recent meetings with European allies when Bush unexpectedly stuck his head in the door. "Are you all talking about Iraq?" the President asked, his voice tinged with schoolyard bravado. Before McCain and the others in the room could do more than nod, Bush waved his hand dismissively. "F___ Saddam," he said. "We're taking him out." And then he left.

Full article is here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080718/us_time/frenemiesthemccainbushdance

So tell me, with an attitude like that, could anything have kept Bush from invading Iraq?
 
i think during the lead up to the war it was pretty obvious where we were headed.

to answer you question, yes something could have stopped him, its call congress but they have no balls anymore.
 
An entrenched power structure averse to the notion of establishing a stronger if more unstable American presence in the Middle East certainly could've stopped him. President Bush certainly helped things along, but its not like he was shouting alone in the wilderness.
 
Bush chose to use his political capital invading Iraq.

If only those WMDs had shown up, the Democratic Party would be in ruins instead of poised to take over both houses of Congress and the Presidency like they did in 1992.
 
Bush is much more hated on than needs to be going on. Right now, we live in America. We have the same freedoms our ancestors were given 200 years ago (unless you came recently from somewhere else) and that hasnt changed. We still sit here at home, knowing all of this will still be here tomorrow. Just because a human being took action makes him deserve to die?
 
[quote name='w00t_culafi'] We have the same freedoms our ancestors were given 200 years ago (unless you came recently from somewhere else) and that hasnt changed. [/QUOTE]

oh to be young...
 
Why wasn't Bush impeached? I mean, Clinton was impeached for something that doesn't impact the United States. Bush did something far worse that has killed thousands of our troops. wasted billions of our dollars, and yet he faces no punishment?
 
Because America is still puritan at it's core and the thought someone doing something sexual in the white house is "ikky." Never mind that Kennedy did worse and with more famous people. Plus, the republicans were just aching to nail Clinton on something, getting a blowjob just happened to fit the bill.
 
Correction: Lying about a blowjob under oath allowed the Republicans to nail Clinton.

If it was just a blowjob or lying about a blowjob in casual conversation, a lot of politicians would be nailed.

That being said, I wished the biggest problem in America today was an Commander in Chief lying about a blowjob under oath. Much less expensive than a pointless war.
 
[quote name='ananag112']Why wasn't Bush impeached? I mean, Clinton was impeached for something that doesn't impact the United States. Bush did something far worse that has killed thousands of our troops. wasted billions of our dollars, and yet he faces no punishment?[/QUOTE]

he had permission from congress, and they continue to give him more money for it.


[quote name='JolietJake']Because America is still puritan at it's core and the thought someone doing something sexual in the white house is "ikky." Never mind that Kennedy did worse and with more famous people. Plus, the republicans were just aching to nail Clinton on something, getting a blowjob just happened to fit the bill.[/QUOTE]

perjury (even stupid perjury) is different than rumors.
 
Do you think that's what they were saying in private? "We nailed the liar."

Please, the fact that he lied just gave them the authority, they knew what it was really about.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']So tell me, with an attitude like that, could anything have kept Bush from invading Iraq?[/QUOTE]

An informed and active citizenry who aren't easily swayed by appeals to the lowest common denominator, but let's face it: that's about as common as hen's teeth.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Bush chose to use his political capital invading Iraq.

If only those WMDs had shown up, the Democratic Party would be in ruins instead of poised to take over both houses of Congress and the Presidency like they did in 1992.[/QUOTE]

Sorta. I take your point that the Democrats wouldn't be in the position they are now, but I'd (perhaps foolishly) like to think that a lot of people realize that just finding WMDs doesn't mean we had a solid plan going in, a viable plan to get out, or the wherewithal to do most of the bits in-between with any kind of grace. Just because a cop fires into a crowd and manages to hit his suspect doesn't mean that what he did wasn't dangerous, poorly thought out, and immoral.
 
[quote name='trq']..that just finding WMDs doesn't mean we had a solid plan going in, a viable plan to get out, or the wherewithal to do most of the bits in-between with any kind of grace. [/quote]

IF WMDs were found, it would have validated everything done during the war and excused anything after the war.

It would be like Nixon in Watchmen.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']IF WMDs were found, it would have validated everything done during the war and excused anything after the war.

It would be like Nixon in Watchmen.[/QUOTE]

Pardon. Didn't mean to imply we actually did find WMD -- just my hope that people would realize that finding them wouldn't change the lies and negligence beforehand ... even if you're probably right.
 
[quote name='trq']Pardon. Didn't mean to imply we actually did find WMD -- just my hope that people would realize that finding them wouldn't change the lies and negligence beforehand ... even if you're probably right.[/quote]

I was going for a bigger spiel, but work is busy. I didn't take that implication.

The spiel was something along the lines that everything Bush has done wrong would be absolved if WMDs had been found.

It is a shame that he couldn't use his 90%+ support to do something positive.

If Bush had pushed (and borrowed) the country into alternative energy as hard as he did into the "War on Terror", Bush would be synonymous with Jesus.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']i think during the lead up to the war it was pretty obvious where we were headed.
[/QUOTE]

On a side note - thinking out loud really - Will we/can we be able to say the same about Iran?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']On a side note - thinking out loud really - Will we/can we be able to say the same about Iran?[/QUOTE]

we've been hearing the drum for awhile, and as i said in the other thread, obamas speech makes me think were headed that way no matter who is elected. so id say yes, we will. however i think there may be more international support this time around which would downplay the lead up to the war compared to iraq. ie, people say bush was gung ho about going to war with iraq, say a year from now if obama invaded iran then people would say, well theres international support (even though the drum has been beating for sometime now).

i mean, just look at this... http://www.reuters.com/article/poli...Type=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

SDEROT, Israel (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear Iran would pose a "grave threat" and that the world must stop Tehran from obtaining an atomic weapon.

Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.
Click to expand...
 
I can't wait. We'll do Iran hard, then a couple of months later find out there were no nukes. Hopefully it will still be in vogue to blame it all on Bush when that happens too.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That article is such a shame.

I know Obama needs to look tough, but I wish he would be smart.[/QUOTE]

wait wait, did you really buy into that whole hope thing?

asinine sarcasm aside, obama is a politician. you have to expect this kind of talk from sooner or later.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']wait wait, did you really buy into that whole hope thing?

asinine sarcasm aside, obama is a politician. you have to expect this kind of talk from sooner or later.[/quote]

If McCain attacks Iran (because it is full of militants Mormons) and Clinton attacks Iran (because war will activate repressive genes to make a cock blossom from that musty twat) and Obama attacks Iran (because he doesn't want to look like a puss), what is the difference in the end result?

Is it too much to ask for a choice about how the US is destroyed in the next administration other than the black guy and the zombie starting an unprofitable war?

EDIT: I wasn't in the tank for Obama. I was just very against McCain and Clinton.
 
That brings up another question, is war with Iran inevitable? I mean, whether the sitting president wants to or not, there seems to be such a push for it that i don't know if it can be avoided.

I don't know what it is, but some people seem to live for war. I don't mean that they themselves want to fight, they just send everyone else to die for their cause. Some people just seem to get turned on by the thought of a new war. They start foaming at the mouth at the very mention of it, when we aren't even through with the two we already started.
 
There was nothing that could have stopped Bush because everyone was blinded by his stupid excuses that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons (which were never found!) and that Saddam Hussein has links to terrorists (wtf? Osama bin Laden HATED Saddam Hussein because of what happened in the Persian Gulf War!). The United States and its leaders (being the ignorant fools that they are) actually BELIEVED his excuses - so no nothing could have stopped Bush from ordering the invasion of Iraq, nothing! Americans are too ignorant to what's going on in the Middle East (mainly because of the anti-Islamic sentiments resulting from 9/11) to even THINK about WHY we should invade ANYWHERE.
 
[quote name='SuperhumanChichi']There was nothing that could have stopped Bush because everyone was blinded by his The CIA, MI6, and multiple other credible intelligence agencies stupid excuses that Iraq was hiding nuclear weapons WMD's (which were never found!) and that Saddam Hussein has links to terrorists (wtf? Osama bin Laden HATED Saddam Hussein because of what happened in the Persian Gulf War!). The United States and its leaders (being the ignorant fools that they are) actually BELIEVED his excuses - so no nothing could have stopped Bush from ordering the invasion of Iraq, nothing! Americans are too ignorant to what's going on in the Middle East (mainly because of the anti-Islamic sentiments resulting from 9/11) to even THINK about WHY we should invade ANYWHERE.[/QUOTE]

Fixed for accuracy.

But you are also wrong. Had Bush not had multiple impartial credible agencies telling him, and us, that there were WMD's there, the American people and Congress would not have allowed the invasion.

I also feel that just because they weren't found doesn't mean they were never there. But not having found any is as good as them never having been there to the worlds eyes. But that's my own opinion, and totally inconsequential to where we are now.
 
Superhuman I advise you to just ignore anything thrust says as he lives in a world of his own creation that is only superficially connected with ours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top